Why people set aside proven treatment, and what the records show

The appointment lasted twenty minutes. The surgeon was brisk, the word cancer arrived early, and the treatment plan came out as a list of dates. A week later the patient has read everything, talked to a friend whose sister had a terrible time with chemotherapy, found a clinic that promises a gentler route, and stopped returning calls.

That scenario is a composite, but researchers who interview people who decline effective treatment hear versions of it again and again. What they rarely hear is gullibility. They hear fear, a bruising first encounter, a strong need to stay in control, and a decision that keeps changing over months.

This article is about that decision: why people make it, what the evidence shows about its consequences, and where professional bodies and regulators say the danger is greatest. The most widely quoted figures, from two 2018 Yale studies of a national cancer database, are the subject of an earlier piece here on the meaning of complementary care. The evidence here comes from elsewhere, and it tells a consistent story. The harm in this area usually comes less from the substitute than from the gap it leaves.

Nobody knows how often it happens

Start with an honest blank. In a 2008 review in the journal Current Oncology, Marja Verhoef and colleagues at the University of Calgary wrote that “[v]alid estimates of the prevalence of the choice to decline conventional treatments are not available …”

The older figures they collected show why. In one US study, 14 percent of 378 cancer patients using alternative medicine declined conventional treatment of any kind, but part of that sample was recruited through alternative practitioners and clinics. In another, 13 percent of 158 patients referred for treatment after surgery rejected all further treatment and 19 percent declined some of it. A third found that about 3 percent of 302 women under 65 with breast cancer had refused conventional treatment. Who was asked drove the answer.

The general population looks different again. A 1998 national survey of 1,035 adults, published in JAMA by a Stanford researcher, found that only 4.4 percent relied primarily on alternative therapies. Substitution is uncommon. It is also not one thing. Declining everything, declining one part of a plan, and postponing treatment for months are different decisions with different risks, and the research rarely separates them cleanly.

Why people decide this, in their own words

The most detailed evidence comes from interviews, and it does not support the picture of a credulous patient.

In a 2012 study in The Oncologist, Dennis Citrin and colleagues at a cancer treatment center in Zion, Illinois, interviewed 60 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Thirty had refused some or all conventional treatment in favor of alternative therapies, and 30 had used both. Three factors stood out among the refusers: first encounters with oncologists they described as “uncaring, insensitive, and unnecessarily harsh,” fear of side effects, and belief in the alternative. Refusers rated chemotherapy and radiation as riskier and less beneficial than the comparison group did, while the comparison group saw relying on an alternative alone as the riskier path, because its value was unproven. Asked what might have changed their minds, the women described compassion, doctors who acknowledged their fears and offered hope, a clear explanation of options, and time to absorb the diagnosis before treatment began.

The Calgary team’s own studies fill in the rest. Among 31 cancer patients who had declined all conventional treatment, some reasons predated the diagnosis: a bad earlier experience with mainstream medicine, watching relatives or friends die of cancer while on conventional treatment, prior use of complementary therapies, and a strong belief in whole-person healing. Others arrived with it: poor communication, the emotional shock, dread of side effects and a high need for control over decisions. Another study cited in the same review listed 22 reasons patients gave, some of them strikingly concrete: not wanting a stoma, not wanting to lose a breast, not wanting to fight any more.

These were not passive patients. In the team’s later studies of 29 men with prostate cancer and roughly 30 women with breast cancer, participants described researching their options extensively. None preferred to leave the final decision to the doctor, and the most common preference in both groups was to make it themselves after seriously weighing the doctor’s opinion. A companion paper on the 29 men, all of whom had declined every recommended treatment, found that they took control by investigating the risks of delay and using complementary approaches as a first option.

Two findings from that work deserve emphasis because they bear directly on outcomes. First, the decision moved. Within three years of follow-up, 5 of the 29 men had begun some form of conventional treatment.

Second, how the doctor responded mattered. Patients valued oncologists who disagreed openly yet kept providing follow-up care, which the researchers called keeping the door open. Patients who felt that a specialist was handing them a death sentence, pushing them to accept treatment, or disparaging complementary and alternative medicine were more likely to drop out of conventional care altogether.

The review also looked at the other side of the desk. In small interview studies, physicians tended to sort patients’ choices into rational and irrational, found refusal of curative treatment harder to accept than refusal of palliative care, and described feelings of uncertainty, failure and helplessness. The authors suggested that this either-or framing may get in the way of responding with sensitivity.

The same review noted that the usual vocabulary for this choice, words such as noncompliance and refusal, carries a judgment before any facts are in. Research from Malaysia adds a structural layer. A 2012 qualitative study of women who had delayed seeking help for breast cancer found fear, belief in complementary medicine and denial alongside other priorities, pressure from others, a wait-and-see attitude and weaknesses in the health system itself. A 2023 synthesis of 39 qualitative studies from sub-Saharan Africa found the same mix on a larger scale: patient preference for complementary and alternative medicine was one of six barrier themes, listed after a long set of health-service problems that included too few specialists, high costs and negative attitudes among health workers.

What the delay studies measure

Quantitative studies of consequences exist, but most come from a narrow set of places, and their findings are more specific than headlines suggest.

Pakistan. In a 2003 study of 138 women with breast cancer at the National Cancer Institute in Karachi, 53 percent waited a month or more after finding a lump before seeing a doctor. Prior use of complementary or alternative therapy was the most common reason given for the delay, and 29 percent had used such therapy before any physician visit, homeopathy most often. Use was associated with delay and with presenting at a more advanced stage.

Malaysia. A 2017 study of 340 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients at six public hospitals found that 46.5 percent had used complementary or alternative medicine. After adjusting for other factors, use was linked to delays in presentation and in diagnosis, but not to delay in starting treatment once diagnosed. The authors raised the possibility that poor access drives some alternative use, while noting that Malaysian public hospitals are heavily subsidized and widely available.

A 2021 cohort of 328 women at five Malaysian centers found that 42.7 percent had used complementary or alternative medicine, and recorded it as the most common patient-side reason for delay: it was cited for 116 women whose diagnosis was delayed and 57 whose treatment was. The longest delays came before diagnosis. By the end of follow-up only five women had refused all treatment. The paper also reports a hazard ratio linking alternative use to not starting treatment, but its methods section describes the statistic in a way that contradicts that direction, so the figure is set aside here.

The united states. A 2011 study in the Annals of Surgical Oncology, led from Oregon Health & Science University, reviewed 61 breast cancer patients from one community surgical practice over 10 years who had refused or delayed standard treatment in favor of alternative therapies. Among the 26 who omitted or delayed surgery, 96.2 percent had disease progression and half died of breast cancer. Their average stage moved from II at first presentation to IV when they returned. The authors estimated 10-year survival for that group at 69.5 percent with recommended treatment. Observed survival was 36.4 percent at a median follow-up of 33 months.

Each of these has limits a reader should keep. The Oregon study is a case series with no comparison group, drawn from one practice’s records. The Asian studies describe health systems, products and patterns of use unlike a US pharmacy aisle. Together they establish that delay attributed to alternative use occurs and can be costly. They do not establish how often it happens here.

Children show the pattern most clearly

Two national surveillance programs, in which pediatricians report cases as they see them, point in the same direction.

The Australian Paediatric Surveillance Unit collected reports from 2001 through 2003, published in 2011 in Archives of Disease in Childhood. There were 39 adverse events linked to complementary and alternative medicine, including four deaths. All four deaths were associated with a failure to use conventional medicine in favor of an alternative therapy. Reports also flagged medication changes made by alternative practitioners and the dangers of severely restricted diets.

The Dutch Paediatric Surveillance Unit ran a three-year survey, published in 2021 in the European Journal of Pediatrics. Of 32 adverse events, 22 were indirect: they arose not from the therapy itself but from delaying, changing or stopping regular treatment, from a deficient or very restrictive diet, or from an incorrect diagnosis by an alternative practitioner. Nine were direct harms such as toxicity, involving supplements, manual therapies and Chinese herbs, and a third of those affected infants. The authors were careful to call such events relatively rare.

The numbers are small, and surveillance catches only what pediatricians recognize and report. But the ratio is the finding. In the Dutch data, indirect harm outnumbered direct harm by more than two to one.

Psychosis: when time itself is the risk

Cancer is not the only condition where delay carries a measurable cost. In psychosis, the length of time a person goes without treatment, called the duration of untreated psychosis, is linked to how well they recover.

A 2020 systematic review in the Asian Journal of Psychiatry examined 15 studies of care pathways in low- and middle-income countries. In 7 of them, most patients first sought help from traditional healers. Untreated psychosis ran from an average of 30 weeks to 225 weeks across studies, and first contact with a healer was associated with longer delay. The authors’ recommendation was not to sideline healers but to raise public awareness and work collaboratively with them to ease access to medical care.

A 2015 study from KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, found the same association for first contact with traditional practitioners, while noting considerable controversy about their role, and that general hospitals were the most common first point of contact. Its authors recommended stronger links between psychiatric and general hospitals and family education designed to fit local culture. Neither study treats tradition as the problem. Both treat time as the problem.

Where professional bodies and regulators draw the line

What medical organizations say

Medical organizations that have addressed substitution name similar danger zones.

The Standing Committee of European Doctors, in a position paper adopted in May 2015, identified patients with cancer, psychiatric conditions or severe chronic illness, and children, as particularly vulnerable to the risks of alternative practices. It warned that steering patients away from medicine can delay proper diagnosis, let a condition worsen and in some cases lead to early death.

The Clinical Oncological Society of Australia, in a May 2013 position statement, said patients face increased risk of harm if they delay or stop proven conventional treatment, and that health professionals should actively discourage delaying potentially curative treatment. The same document insists on respecting a patient’s right to make their own decisions and on creating an environment where patients feel able to say what they are using. The emphasis on potentially curative treatment marks where the stakes are highest. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners’ homeopathy statement, dated October 2025, adds that delaying or avoiding a doctor because of homeopathy can have serious and sometimes fatal consequences.

The sharpest line comes from the field most committed to complementary therapies in cancer care. The Society for Integrative Oncology says on its guidelines page that consultations must make clear what is complementary and what is alternative, and that alternative approaches should by definition be avoided. When ASCO endorsed the society’s breast cancer guideline in 2018, it described integrative oncology as coordinating evidence-based complementary therapies with conventional care. A 2017 consensus definition led by Claudia Witt describes the field as working alongside conventional cancer treatment. Integration, as these bodies use the word, assumes the conventional treatment is still there.

What regulators have pursued

US enforcement in this area targets marketing, and its theory of harm matches the surveillance data.

In September 2008 the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration held a joint press event announcing Operation False Cures, a sweep against online sellers of fake cancer treatments, carried out with US and Canadian partners. By April 2009 the FTC reported 11 cases, all but two resolved. One seller had marketed 16 Chinese herbal teas for 16 types of cancer plus a special formula for the rest. Another sold herbal tea blends, maitake mushroom extracts and chaparral with claims including tumor shrinkage.

In December 2009 the commission voted 4 to 0 against a supplement seller whose four products were claimed to prevent, treat and cure cancer and to ease the effects of chemotherapy and radiation. The order required a letter to buyers about consulting their health care providers so that all parts of their treatment worked together. A federal appeals court upheld the order in December 2010, rejecting a religious freedom defense, and in March 2011 the Justice Department sought civil penalties for alleged violations.

An FDA consumer safety officer, Nicole Kornspan, described the motive in a 2020 agency update in terms the interview studies would recognize, pointing to the panic and despair a cancer diagnosis can bring to patients and the people close to them. The FDA, in an April 2017 action against companies selling unproven cancer products, said it had issued more than 90 warning letters on such products over the previous decade and that such products can harm patients indirectly by delaying or interfering with proven treatment. The FTC’s health products guidance of December 2022 makes the same point in advertising law: an unsupported claim can lead a consumer to forgo a more effective treatment. One worked example in that guidance describes an ad for a liquid mineral solution sold as a folk remedy for shrinking tumors, and concludes that even a clear disclosure of no scientific support would not stop it conveying that the product treats cancer.

Questions that keep the decision with your clinician

None of this tells anyone what to choose. It suggests what a good decision process covers. Preparing for the appointment, asking about alternatives, and sharing the decision are each covered elsewhere in this library. These questions are specific to substitution.

1. What does timing mean for this condition? For a curable cancer or a first episode of psychosis, the research above links longer delays to worse outcomes. Ask the clinician what starting later than planned would mean in your case.
2. What does each part of the plan do? Treatment plans often combine several steps, and the clinician can explain what each one contributes and what would be lost without it.
3. How will the condition be followed, and will that continue if we disagree? The Calgary researchers found that patients valued oncologists who kept monitoring them even while disagreeing, and their paper on the 29 men called for physicians to support an active patient role while carefully tracking the disease.
4. Who benefits from the alternative? Every enforcement case above involved someone selling the substitute.
5. Which signs should prompt an urgent call? Ask the clinician which symptoms or test results would mean the situation has changed. Knowing the signal in advance keeps the door open.

Some situations call for prompt medical attention whatever plan is in place: a lump that grows or changes, new or worsening pain, unexplained bleeding or weight loss, confusion, hearing or seeing things others do not, or, in a child, poor feeding, unusual drowsiness or a fever that does not settle. If any practitioner advises stopping or postponing a treatment someone else prescribed, the prescribing clinician is the person who should hear that advice before anything changes.

The Takeaway

People who set aside effective treatment are usually frightened, poorly served by an early conversation, or determined to stay in control, and many change course later. The documented harm, in children and adults alike, comes mostly from what was delayed or stopped rather than from what was taken. That makes the relationship with the treating clinician, and whether it survives a disagreement, one of the few factors in this area that anyone has shown to matter.

Sources

1. Current Oncology. “Verhoef MJ, Rose MS, White M, Balneaves LG. "Declining conventional cancer treatment and using complementary and alternative medicine: a problem or a challenge?" Curr Oncol, 2008. PubMed. DOI: 10.3747/co.v15i0.281.” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
2. The Oncologist. “Citrin DL, Bloom DL, Grutsch JF, Mortensen SJ, Lis CG. "Beliefs and perceptions of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer who refused conventional treatment in favor of alternative therapies." Oncologist, 2012. PubMed. DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0468.” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
3. Integrative Medicine Insights. “White MA, Verhoef MJ, Davison BJ, Gunn H, Cooke K. "Seeking Mind, Body and Spirit Healing: Why Some Men with Prostate Cancer Choose CAM (Complementary and Alternative Medicine) over Conventional Cancer Treatments." Integr Med Insights, 2008. PubMed. DOI: 10.4137/imi.s377.” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
4. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention. “Norsa'adah B, Rahmah MA, Rampal KG, Knight A. "Understanding barriers to Malaysian women with breast cancer seeking help." Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 2012. PubMed. DOI: 10.7314/apjcp.2012.13.8.3723.” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
5. Clinical Oncology (Royal College of Radiologists). “Mwamba M, Lombe DC, Msadabwe S et al. "A Narrative Synthesis of Literature on the Barriers to Timely Diagnosis and Treatment of Cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa." Clin Oncol, 2023. PubMed. DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2023.05.011.” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
6. JAMA. “Astin JA. "Why patients use alternative medicine: results of a national study." JAMA, 1998. PubMed. DOI: 10.1001/jama.279.19.1548.” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
7. European Journal of Epidemiology. “Malik IA, Gopalan S. "Use of CAM results in delay in seeking medical advice for breast cancer." Eur J Epidemiol, 2003. PubMed. DOI: 10.1023/a:1025343720564.” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
8. PLoS One. “Mohd Mujar NM, Dahlui M, Emran NA et al. "Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use and delays in presentation and diagnosis of breast cancer patients in public hospitals in Malaysia." PLoS One, 2017. PubMed. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176394.” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
9. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention. “Norsa'adah B, Rampal KG, Mohd Amin R. "Time Taken for Symptom Recognition, First Consultation, Diagnosis and First Definitive Treatment and Its Associated Factors among Women with Breast Cancer." Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 2021. PubMed. DOI: 10.31557/APJCP.2021.22.11.3623.” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
10. Annals of Surgical Oncology. “Han E, Johnson N, DelaMelena T, Glissmeyer M, Steinbock K. "Alternative therapy used as primary treatment for breast cancer negatively impacts outcomes." Ann Surg Oncol, 2011. PubMed. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-010-1487-0.” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
11. Archives of Disease in Childhood. “Lim A, Cranswick N, South M. "Adverse events associated with the use of complementary and alternative medicine in children." Arch Dis Child, 2011. PubMed. DOI: 10.1136/adc.2010.183152.” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
12. European Journal of Pediatrics. “Vos B, Rake JP, Vlieger A. "Adverse events associated with pediatric complementary and alternative medicine in the Netherlands: a national surveillance study." Eur J Pediatr, 2021. PubMed. DOI: 10.1007/s00431-020-03899-8.” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
13. Asian Journal of Psychiatry. “Lilford P, Wickramaseckara Rajapakshe OB, Singh SP. "A systematic review of care pathways for psychosis in low-and middle-income countries." Asian J Psychiatr, 2020. PubMed. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102237.” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
14. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. “Tomita A, Burns JK, King H et al. "Duration of untreated psychosis and the pathway to care in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa." J Nerv Ment Dis, 2015. PubMed. DOI: 10.1097/NMD.0000000000000268.” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
15. Standing Committee of European Doctors (CPME). “CPME position paper on complementary and alternative treatments (adopted by the CPME Board, 23 May 2015).” cpme.eu
16. Clinical Oncological Society of Australia. “Position statement: The use of complementary and alternative medicine by cancer patients (May 2013).”
17. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. “Position statement: Homeopathy (October 2025).” racgp.org.au
18. Society for Integrative Oncology. “Use of SIO Clinical Guidelines.” integrativeonc.org
19. Journal of Clinical Oncology (American Society of Clinical Oncology). “Lyman GH, Greenlee H, Bohlke K et al. "Integrative Therapies During and After Breast Cancer Treatment: ASCO Endorsement of the SIO Clinical Practice Guideline." J Clin Oncol, 2018. PubMed. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2018.79.2721.” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
20. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs. “Witt CM, Balneaves LG, Cardoso MJ et al. "A Comprehensive Definition for Integrative Oncology." J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr, 2017. PubMed. DOI: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgx012.” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
21. Federal Trade Commission. “Media advisory: FTC's Operation False Cures Targets Peddlers of Bogus Cancer Remedies (September 15, 2008).” ftc.gov
22. Federal Trade Commission. “FTC Halts Bogus Cancer Cures (April 3, 2009).” ftc.gov
23. Federal Trade Commission. “Commission Upholds Judge's Ruling Against Marketers of Bogus Cancer Cures (December 24, 2009).” ftc.gov
24. Federal Trade Commission. “FTC Charges Cancer Cures Marketers with Violating Commission Order (March 28, 2011).” ftc.gov
25. Federal Trade Commission. “Health Products Compliance Guidance (December 20, 2022).” ftc.gov
26. US Food and Drug Administration. “Questions and Answers: FDA alerts companies to stop the illegal sale of products claiming to treat cancer (content current as of April 25, 2017).” fda.gov
27. US Food and Drug Administration. “Products Claiming to 'Cure' Cancer Are a Cruel Deception (content current as of September 4, 2020).” fda.gov